VCS Court Claim

wexpy

So I had my hearing...and it was adjourned to another day as the judge felt not enough time was allocated in order to hear all the points being made. So WS needs to be re-submitted.

A couple of points he made.

1 - he wanted the witness from VCS to attend.
2 - he was of the opinion that VCS could claim the additional £60
3. - I had an uphill struggle to convince him that I had a case, but did make some points that VCS needed to answer

So I'll post a link to my current WS, and will begin re-writing it/tightening up my arguments
and evidence.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fq887vcrnsnzko/Final%20WS.pdf?dl=0

Any comments gratefully received.

Le_Kirk

What were the reason(s) the judge gave for the claimant being able to circumvent the law and claim spurious charges such as the £60?

wexpy

He said there was nothing in law that stopped them. They may not be awarded it, but could ask for it. He said if it was £170 then that would not be allowed...i remember seeing somewhere that £60 was the 'limit', but obviously part of the WS is pointing out why they cant.

Le_Kirk

Ah good, didn't actually say they would be awarded it then. The "limit" is what the law states, i.e. POFA (if that applies to your case) and CPR. You need to make sure your WS is strong on that point.

Coupon-mad

he was of the opinion that VCS could claim the additional £60

When is it adjourned until? He is wrong and you need to show him the way. You need the Caernarfon judgment to be added, plus the Beavis case.

Put in a Skeleton Argument before the next hearing, that has this and the two judgments, one of which is about VCS:

Inflation of the charge - double recovery - abuse of process

7. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. The Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third-party debt collector during the process.

9. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this charging model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.

11. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact and binding precedent, that the PCN already covers the costs of the letters.

11.1. At para 98 it was said, regarding the desirability of running a parking scheme to generate a profit: ''...it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...”

11.2. At para 193: ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and further, at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

12. The suggested 'legal fees' are also made up out of thin air. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

13. In addition, the POFA makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute and it is submitted the Claimant has failed on all counts and that they are well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

15. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

The numbering is obviously randomly taken from another case!

You also need the transcripts for PCM v Bull and Pace v Lengyel if you omitted them as evidence, I see your WS mentioned them both, but you need to serve transcripts with a skelly, if you didn't already.

AND a costs schedule including your loss of leave and travel for the first hearing, plus duplicate costs for the second hearing!